Data, Stats and Daily Numbers started 6th April 2021

[boys3]

UK govt pressers Slides & data www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences#history
Data Dashboard coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Covid 19 Genomics www.cogconsortium.uk/tools-analysis/public-data-analysis-2/
NHS Vaccination data www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
Global vaccination data ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
R estimates UK & English regions www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk
Imperial UK weekly LAs, cases / 100k, table, map, hotspots statistics imperialcollegelondon.github.io/covid19local/#map
NHS England Hospital activity www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
NHs England Daily deaths www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
Cases Tracker England Local Government lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/view/lga-research/covid-19-case-tracker
ONS MSAO Map English deaths www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
CovidMessenger live update by council area in England www.covidmessenger.com/
Scot gov Daily data www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/
Scotland TravellingTabby LAs, care homes, hospitals, tests, t&t www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
PH Wales LAs, cases, tests, deaths Dashboard public.tableau.com/profile/public.health.wales.health.protection#!/vizhome/RapidCOVID-19virology-Public/Headlinesummary
ICNRC Intensive Care National Audit & Research reports www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports
NHS t&t England & UK testing Weekly stats www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
PHE Surveillance reports & LA Local Watchlist Maps by LSOA (from last summer) www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
ONS England infection surveillance report each Friday www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/previousReleases
Datasets for ONS surveillance reports www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata/2020
ONS Roundup deaths, infections & economic reports www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26
Zoe UK data covid.joinzoe.com/data#interactive-map
ECDC (European Centre for Disease Control) rolling 14-day incidence EEA & UK www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea

Worldometer UK page www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Our World in Data GB test positivity etc, DIY country graphs ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
FT DIY graphs compare deaths, cases, raw / million pop ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&areas=bra&areas=gbr&areas=cze&areas=hun&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usnd&areasRegional=ussd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-09-01&values=deaths

PHE local health data fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/health-profiles
Alama Personal COVID risk assessment alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/
Local Mobility Reports for countries www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
UK Highstreet Tracker for cities & large towns Footfall, spend index, workers, visitors, economic recovery www.centreforcities.org/data/high-streets-recovery-tracker/

⏭ Our STUDIES Corner ⏮ www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3869571-Studies-corner?msgid=99913434

We welcome factual, data driven and analytical contributions
Please try to keep discussion focused on these

Do they say why they think 73.4% is herd immunity, it's considerably lower than other predictions, and corresponds to an R0 of ~3.76, but everyone else is pretty sure the R0 of the Kent variant is well over 4?

(I agree with Firefliess on the rest)

Ha @boys3.
Out of interest, if you're adding comparators anyway, could the annual population survey be an extra useful source to consider for any areas that seem particularly unusual? Specifically, I was wondering if this helps in looking for a link between UK/ EU / non-EU population and take-up, to differentiate the "white other" possible vaccination rate:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/populationoftheunitedkingdombycountryofbirthandnationality. Whether that's people (especially hospitality staff or those working from home) who've moved overseas, or declined take-up. At the risk of banging a drum on this, I know 5 work colleagues who are currently working from overseas because they moved in the first lockdown, as well as two neighbour families who moved overseas in the past year because they planned to... I can't think any of them would have cancelled their GP. (Though 1 of the 5 mentioned last week that they're coming back for vaccines when it reaches their age group, so maybe it won't always make a difference.)

@boys3 Indeed. I was thinking out loud so to speak!

@PurpleWh1teGreen when I went (Oxford) they pretty much insisted that everyone changed to the college doctor. It did seem a little silly to have to change when you were officially there less than half a year, however I did use him a certain amount, not least because I stayed on living there so needed maternity cover!
For my dd (Durham) they said "we suggest you register with a local doctor", but when I went it was "you must provide your medical card and we will register you."
I think the only person I knew who didn't, had major (unusual) health issues, so needed to stay with the one who knew him best.

We chose not to change for my dd, on the basis that she has been to the doctor once in the last 10 years, that she is far more likely to want to settle round here than up there and our GP is full, so if she leaves she won't get back in, that if she did need a non-urgent appointment, then she'd rather wait until she got back if possible and saw the one she knows.
An emergency is just as likely to happen in either place, and either place will see under emergency anyway.

Royal Holloway comes under Runnymede Borough Council, in Surrey. In your table they have conspicuously low under 50 vaccination.

I would have thought the vaccination gets assigned back to the GP wherever, so the group 6 Royal Holloway student gets vaccinated in Rother staying with mum, but the vaccination rate is still assigned back to Runnymede. Eventually it all balances out.

@sirfredfredgeorge

Do they say why they think 73.4% is herd immunity, it's considerably lower than other predictions, and corresponds to an R0 of ~3.76, but everyone else is pretty sure the R0 of the Kent variant is well over 4?

(I agree with Firefliess on the rest)

Wishful thinking maybe? Many people are craving positive news stories. 73.4 would create a theoretical herd immunity with an R of about 3.9 I think, which I'm sure you could find someone having estimated it at if you tried hard enough. Also requires a representative mix of immune people in every social interaction of course - I'm tell that to 17 year old DD as she makes her summer social plans....

This is a very small extract comparing NIMS and ONS MYE 2019 population estimates for 6 London Boroughs. Uses the NIMS figures from the 8th April weekly vacc file (eg the latest published - however I have not yet done a comparison between NIMS files - eg how the figures for these boroughs have varied since the NIMS population estimate was introduced to the weekly file).

So for each borough shown:

Row 1: NIMS population estimate
Row 2: ONS Mid Year 2019 cased population estimate
Row 3: "gap"; NIMs less ONS; so a negative red number indicates that the ONS figure is higher
Row 4 "gap %"

There are some quite eye watering numbers.

Hammersmith & Fulham NIMS figure for 16-49s , 50%, that is to say 50,000 people higher. This is the most extreme example for any LBC in percentage terms for that age group. Although Ealing, Wandsworth and Newham all have a much bigger gap in terms of absolute number of people in that age band.

In contrast the gap in Havering is a more reasonable 7%.

In the older age groups a number of examples of the NIMS figure being lower than the ONS figures, and also in the under 16 group.

The second table is the absolute gap number for every borough - which may be a little more difficult to read as all 33 LBCs including City of London are included. The City of London population is of course more akin to a MSOA.

It is worth re-emphasising that the scale of variance in London is hugely different to the rest of the country.

No jumping to Telegraph-esque conclusions!!!!

@boys3 - the file I linked above, 58 of 128k in Hammersmith are estimated to be non-UK born. 45% population might well make a difference in GP registrations, as well as changes (Australia / NZ tend to register but stay just a few years for example).

Thanks for that comparison @boys. I'd agree with @Mrex that the most likely explanation is non UK born people who've moved back to home counties and not bothered de-registering. And GPs who are very happy to leave them on their lists as they're paid for the number of people on their list aren't they? This would explain the apparent low rates of vaccination in central London boroughs and also Oxford and Cambridge - all places where large numbers of people come from overseas for a year or two, then move back. UK born people emigrating could be a factor too, but likely to be more even between different areas.

Thanks @mrex.

I’ve just gone through the full file for all Councils, even using 10 year age bands a lot start to exceed 100% take up; not in London mind you, although take rates in the capital improve but are still low compared to pretty much everywhere else.

Oxford shows a big improvement; not looked for the other place yet. Exeter has the highest overall take up rates in the SW for the over 50s.

I will start posting some regional tables shortly

Based on broader 10 year age bands, and showing NIMS based and ONS based estimates side by side; and then at the far end overall rankings for over 50s for both NIMS and ONS based percentages.

Starting with London , clearly higher uptake if ONS based but relatively take up relative to rest of England still low; and North East where that prime destination for those coming from overseas - Middlesborough - now leads the way. Note the amount of NE councils with over 100% uptake in the 70-79 band.

South West and highest ranked 20 or so of South East councils - note Oxford now appears in this list

North West

West Mids

Yorks & Humber

which takes me up to my daily, or seemingly 24 hr, upload limit.

Can anyone translate that message on the dashboard?

Nevermind, I've read the explanation now.

@CarrotPuff

Can anyone translate that message on the dashboard?

They've started removing positive cases identified via lateral flow tests which are false positives, as confirmed by a negative PCR test within 3 days. Backdating this has made a mess of the data today (but should lead to more accurate counting of cases in the future)

They are now removing false positive LFD's from the data - so if there was a PCR taken within 3 days from an LFD that was negative, that is completely removed (would be nicer if it was called out)

That means that to date, 8010 false positives have been identified, would be nice if someone could see what the changes are. From memory the 21st I was tracking before is around 20% but that's based on my faulty memory, but that's actually a pretty good number (as in low false positive), although it now means we can see the number of people who do not bother going for a PCR after, and that does look low, sadly.

Yes it would be nice to know how many positive LFTs are removed once found to be false via PCR tests. I recall the number that were subsequently confirmed by PCRs as being about a third of the total - which would suggest a third of LFTs are confirmed as positive, a third are found to be wrong and are negative (now removed from the dashboard), and another third don't bother with a PCR test (my guess would be mostly people who've developed symptoms and know they are positive so don't bother with the PCR - anyone who thinks they're negative would surely check?)

Has anyone downloaded the data before today and able to check how many they removed?

I was under impression that they haven't from individual days, but said a total of 8000.

@CarrotPuff

I was under impression that they haven't from individual days, but said a total of 8000.

Oh yes, you can work it out roughly from that can't you? If we assume 7,000 of those 8,000 removed were in England that would suggest the totals (for England) are: - LFTs confirmed by PCR: 66,702

• LFTs unconfirmed (ie the person did not get a PCR test): 49,730
• LFT false positives: 7,000 (approx)

Which suggests the false positive rate of LFTs is really pretty low. Around 10% of all those that are checked with a PCR.

@CarrotPuff They must have as the total still adds up on the difference between each day, todays total is still the sum, not 8010 lower.

I think the "not changed todays statement" is saying that they haven't adjusted the number today by -8010 but simply changed all the past days, (I hope it's right there wasn't over 10000 cases today)

Which suggests the false positive rate of LFTs is really pretty low. Around 10% of all those that are checked with a PCR

I think we should be cautionary on that, before recent times, the checking via PCR were done only in high risk individuals, nurses etc. the only low risk individuals getting LFD tests were being done in walk-in centres where LFD's are confirmed.

Given the evidence that true positives and false positives (and false negatives) were different in untrained users, then it would be useful to see the numbers in these groups - and I think the numbers on sundays are a good proxy for that I think.

It's still going to be upper bounded at 20% than anything that much higher, but I don't think we can truly generalise as you have there. Would also be interesting to see how the days have changed both from different use and of course due to the change in prevalence.

Thanks @boys3. It's an interesting picture and may indicate the lower BAME take-up; I get the impression mosques are doing really well at improving take-up, but churches and secular groups need similar reassurance.

I think what I'd like to see for vaccinations from the government's dashboard are the population percentages separated into: taken, offered not yet booked, offered and declined, cannot reach, not offered yet, unregistered vaccinated (e.g. unregistered homeless), unregistered declined. That might help filter out some of the noise to see how we are actually doing in relation to herd immunity in different areas